Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV00145, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV00145 Hearing Date: January 8, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 2, 2020, Plaintiff Matthew Morgan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Infinity Insurance Company, Adan Villareal (“Defendant”), Geico, and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort.
On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort.
On July 1, 2021, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. On January 5, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal.
On December 28, 2022, the clerk entered Defendant’s default. On April 11, 2023, the Court entered default judgment against Defendant.
On September 19, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to set aside the April 11, 2023 default judgment. The same day, Defendant filed an answer.
On October 6, 2023, the Court set the trial for March 6, 2024.
On January 22, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application in part and continued the trial from March 6, 2024 to May 22, 2024. However, the Court ruled that discovery and related dates would continue to be based on the March 6, 2024 trial date until further Court order.
On April 18, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to continue the trial from May 22, 2024 to July 10, 2024. The Court did not reopen discovery.
On June 25, 2024, the Court continued the trial from July 10, 2024 to August 8, 2024 based on the parties’ oral stipulation.
On August 5, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application and continued the trial from August 8, 2024 to December 9, 2024. The Court ruled: “Discovery is to remain closed absent a stipulation or an order from the Court pursuant to the filing of a Motion to Reopen Discovery.”
On October 25, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to continue the trial and reopen discovery.
On November 25, 2024, the Court continued the trial from December 9, 2024 to February 4, 2025 based on the parties’ oral stipulation. The Court stated: “All discovery/motion cut-off is closed. The pre-trial motion cut off shall remain in effect.”
Trial is currently scheduled for February 4, 2025.
B. This motion
On November 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed another motion to continue the trial to a date “on or after December 19, 2024.” (Motion p. 1.) The motion also asks the Court to continue the trial to June 30, 2025. (Motion p. 8.) The motion was set for hearing on January 8, 2025. On January 3, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff
asks the Court to continue the trial to a date “on or after December 19, 2024.” (Motion p. 1.) Plaintiff also asks the Court to continue the
trial to June 30, 2025. (Motion p. 8.)
Defendant asks the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 provides:
“(a) Trial dates are firm
“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.
“(b) Motion or application
“A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.
“(c) Grounds for continuance
“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:
“(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
“(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
“(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
“(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;
“(5) The addition of a new party if:
“(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or
“(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;
“(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or
“(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.
“(d) Other factors to be considered
“In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include:
“(1) The proximity of the trial date;
“(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;
“(3) The length of the continuance requested;
“(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;
“(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;
“(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;
“(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;
“(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;
“(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;
“(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and
“(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asks the Court to continue the trial either to a date “on or after December 19, 2024” or to June 30, 2025.
Defendant opposes the motion, arguing a continuance would put the trial date past the statutory deadline to bring the case to trial. However, Defendant has not excluded the time the case was dismissed (July 1, 2021 to January 5, 2022) from the five-year calculation.
Because the trial is now scheduled to begin on February 4, 2025, Plaintiff’s request to continue the trial to a date “on or after December 19, 2024” (Motion p. 1) is moot.
To the extent that Plaintiff is asking to continue the trial to June 30, 2025, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for a continuance of this length. Plaintiff argues that (1) he will be “in the final week of condensed 8-week courses on December 9, 2024” (Motion p. 2), (2) Plaintiff’s wife has limited ability to care for their children (Motion p. 2), and (3) Defendant’s counsel have not responded to Plaintiff’s request for a stipulation to continue the trial (Motion p. 2). Plaintiff also asserts: “As Plaintiff is no longer available to attend and conduct a trial in the foreseeable future, he now must hire an attorney to represent him. Plaintiff was informed by multiple attorneys that they would not even consider taking on Plaintiffs case unless it was continued, as they need time to get up to speed, and file needed motions.” (Morgan dec. ¶ 11.) These facts do not establish good cause to continue the trial to June 30, 2025.
The
Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Matthew Morgan’s motion to continue the trial.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.